h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree Z, particularly concerning what you said about casual readers of the Guide - they're unlikely to know how many of the these analytical entries there are unless they go to DD's space and start trawling through his list of entries It's a fault of people caught up in a passionate discussion that they often fail to see things through the eyes of the people they're talking about - in this instance some of us are assuming that the casual reader/newbie will be aware of the other entries and the politics going on in threads such as this. Of course they won't.

Mind you, just because you haven't seen it done anywhere else doesn't mean that it hasn't been, and although I think that these entries can be quite clever, I wouldn't care to see them become a trade mark or feature of h2g2, merely an interesting oddity.

GD's post gives me a chance to step in and try to make a general point about some of the arguments that have surfaced in this thread.

It is perfectly valid to express a subjective viewpoint like "I think that this is quite an acceptable entry" in a PR thread. Likewise, it's perfectly acceptable for Felonious Monk to say that he doesn't like this entry or this type of entry. The problems occur when we confuse the concept of 'valid opinions' with 'correct, unassailable judgements.' We need to be wary of extrapolating from our deeply held personal views to the creation of new, additional criteria for acceptance into the EG that depend on value judgements.

It is hard enough to apply the criteria we have without having to decide whether a song is good enough to deconstruct. Who decides? How do we decide? And then on top of that we have to to decide - and agree upon - whether or not the deconstruction itself is 'good' or 'bad'....? Most of us understand that such criteria would be unworkable. Those few of us with massive egos won't see the problem, of course, because the idea that their decision might not be final is one they can't comprehend.

*If* the number of EG entries being put forward was greatly in excess of capacity so that any single entry had little or no chance of making it into the Guide in the lifetime of its author we might have to look at additional criteria. But that's not the case.

*If* nearly all the entries being put forward were of the same genre (song deconstructions, recipes, whatever) then it might be a different matter.

But, as it is, one Entry does not currently push out another. Accepting a mediocre song deconstruction does not prevent a brilliant piece on, say, hawthorn bushes from getting into the Guide. Capacity is, to all intents and purposes, limitless.

I do understand the strong protective feelings people have towards the Guide. I know people want the Guide to be 'good' but my view is that all we can do is make sure that our own writing matches the standards we would like to see and lead by example, not by imposition.

I just think we're now scraping the bottle of the barrel when it comes to songs to analyse. I don't have any problems with your writing, Master B, just the subject matter, mainly because I think it's being made to serve the format, rather than vice versa. The more of this sort of stuff we get on the Front Page, the more people it will deter. So no, I should *not* be ashamed of myself because the only reason I'm getting on my high horse here is because I want the Guide to be a stimulating resource that is both fun to write for and read, not a silly game that, once you know the rules, you can win hands down every time.
As regards capacity, the Italics have recently said that they'd have more entries on the Front Page if they had the resources. I can just imagine them raising their eyes to heaven when they get another one of these. DD admitted he had another 3 of these entries in pre-production. I make no apologies for my observation that if it's *that* easy to get 100 Edited Entires, why make such a big song and dance about it?

You see, Felonious Monk, throughout post 83 you present assertions as if they are facts, but they are only your opinions. They are opinions that others might not share. They are opinions I don't share. I don't think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel and I don't think people will be detered by this article. neither of us can support our opinions with evidence so we'll just have to agree to differ.

In my opinion, it would help reasoned debate in a calm and supportive atmosphere if you could present your views in a way that accepts that you may not be right.

If you're right, I should be fighting tooth and claw to keep Master B's article out because it might keep the article I have in PR out of the Edited Guide. Do you think there will be a noticeable delay in getting my article accepted? Have I made a big mistake?

You may well be able to imagine the Italics "raising their eyes to heaven..." I might be wrong but I'd put good money on that not being the case. My guess is that the Italics will welcome Master B's Entry with open arms and a smile. We shall see.

My last point is that, knowing DD as I do, I think he's going to be rather upset by your final comments. You've clearly upset him on a similar topic in the thread you gave above too. Why do you feel the need to do this? How does this help?

I accept this is my opinion and that it is no more (or less) valid than that of others. I don't feel the need to upset anybody, actually. This is an opinion about the writing of someone else. If people don't want others to comment upon their writing then they shouldn't post it here. If others get upset by my comments about it then it's just too bad, I'm afraid.
By all means, criticise my writing if you like. Call it dense, overwrought, dealing with overly rarefied toppics, whatever. But just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.

I'm glad you don't feel the need to upset anybody but I can see from DD's words in the other thread that he is upset. I wonder if there is a way to retrieve that situation.

Felonious Monk, I look forward to reading your next Entry into PR . Among my reasons for commenting will be to support you in your writing, to engage with the topic and learn something, to have the opportunity to ask questions, to offer additional material for inclusion if I can, to catch any of those pesky typos that may have crept in... I am most unlikely to call it dense although I might make suggestions to make it more easily digestible. Overwrought is not an adjective I have much use for in the context of writing and no topic is ever too rare for me or, in my opinion, for the Guide.

So what do you think my reasons are for criticising this entry?

I can do better than that. Because I was paying attention I *know* that the reason you're "getting on my high horse here is because [you] want the Guide to be a stimulating resource that is both fun to write for and read, not a silly game that, once you know the rules, you can win hands down every time."

I agree that the Guide should "be a stimulating resource that is both fun to write for and read."

It is my opinion that Master B is not playing 'a silly game I think your comment is unfair and inaccurate because it appears to be dismissive of the time and effort Master B put into his writing.

The phrase "you can win hands down every time" makes me wonder if you see Edited status as a prize to be won or lost according to how 'good' the writer is. I'd like to hear more of your views on this. My view is that your work matches the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you have the opportunity to continue to work on your article so you can never 'lose' or 'win.' I don't see PR as a competition.

On the contrary: I am not dismissive of the time and effort that has been put into the writing. If someone says it took them several days to write an entry like this, then who am I to argue? I'm dismissive of this format of entry and, if you read the thread that DD started on my PS, then you'll understand why. I really don't want to rehearse the arguments all over again.

I didn't start the business of seeing entry into the EG as a prize, and I still don't. Others got there well ahead of me, believe me, and I was mocking their attitude rather than laying bare my own, as you are perfectly well aware. I get pleased when an entry gets accepted, but then who wouldn't? But if it comes to the crunch, if we have to keep score, then let's not do it according to how many EG entries one has written.

Do you know why I write? Because I'm a thwarted teacher, that's why. Because I miss the tutorial classes I used to run when I was a lecturer, the challenge of getting across difficult concepts, and the satisfaction that one might have imparted something worth knowing and stimulated an interest to find out more. I still like to do that. Now, tell me please: how might I gain a similar satisfaction by going through the exercise of writing one of *these* entries? Moreover, what might my audience get from it in turn?

*Blinks.*

Hmmmm. As a relative newbie, I was surprised to find such a heated discussion going on here. Also, as I fear I may be one of the 'two new authors' referred to several posts ago who have written entries on vaguely similar lines recently, (A3925055), I have an interest in the subject. My entry was written more as practical research into the mechanics of how h2g2 works than into the subject itself, but obviously it would be very satisfying and flattering for it to get in, so I wrote it as well as I could and took on whatever advice and encouragement was given in PR.

If at any point people had started telling me that my subject matter was unsuitable and that such entries were boring, I think I would have given up on the whole community on principle. If people enjoy writing and reading such entries, then let them. If you don't, then don't. I got into h2g2 precisely because of the bizarre spectrum of subjects in it, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Deconstructions of obscure one-hit-wonder pop songs have just as much place in that spectrum as physics or history.

I feel that the inherent humour of having such incongruous subjects side-by-side is part of what made the idea of Adams' original guide so appealing in the first place.

Felonious Monk and others who share his opinion will be pleased to know that I at least will not be attempting any more examinations of pop songs in the near future, however. As I said, it was just a way of finding out how everything worked.

Should "Perhaps more fondly recommended for constant views of Anneka Rice's posterior clad in a black jumpsuit." say remembered instead of recommended? Fondly doesn't strike me as a great adverb for recommended.

I'm not particularly interested in getting pulled into this debate, but I'd like to remind y'all that according to the Eds, the only way one can get the lyrics of a song into an entry without violating copyright law is through a line-by-line analysis.
Shortly after the We Didn't Start the Fire thingy, I remember someone who put all the lyrics of a song into an entry, and they were encouraged (by Jimster I think) to either remove them, or attempt to do an analysis of the lyrics.

I don't think it's disputed that musical entries are a good thing - be they classical, rock or novelty. When a lyric analysis benefits an entry about a song, I don't see a problem. But there's something to the point FM made that entries shouldn't be made to fit this format. This format should be used when it's necessary for an entry that should be in the guide. The format should always be made to fit the format, not the other way around.

Someone who doesn't like me once wrote a song about me, but I'm not about to put it on here and explain and verify all the characteristics it attributes to me because it was a simple little novelty song. Plus it would be moderated, because it would be *grossly* inappropriate for the BBC

That said, I do think this *should* go into the EG because it fits the guidelines and it's fairly entertaining, but would encourage y'all to come up with some fresh ideas. We need an entry about Sir Paul McCartney before we need another one these

off to read about Onions... and unsubscribe.

'I remember someone who put all the lyrics of a song into an entry, and they were encouraged (by Jimster I think) to either remove them, or attempt to do an analysis of the lyrics.'

Yeah, that was me. *Blushes.*

Oh God, thank you Jodan for actually grasping the point that I was trying to make: this seam of EG entries is now 'mined-out'.

I've written two entries about songs myself. My most recent one was about a song, but it was about the incongruity of its impact upon British culture and the ignorance that most people had of it. You can find it on my PS.

Yalson - Rest assured that the quality of your entry is beyond debate. I hope you will continue to mine such a rich vein for future entries.

As regards lyrics, when I was compiling We Didn't Start The Fire I checked beforehand with Jimster, and he said it shouldn't be a problem to include the entire lyrics of the song as long as I was objectively analysing them. Apres moi le deluge.

FM - Rest assured that there aren't all that many 'list' songs that merit being taken apart syllable-by-syllable any more. I can only think of Vogue that's left, but I think I'll leave that to someone else.

B

'Silly' is a dismissive word whichever way you look at it. Who are you to be dismissive of the format of someone else's work?

If a deconstructed song matches the list of criteria set out for the EG, should anyone insist on extra criteria?

If an article matches the criteria with regard to originality, being factual etc, by all means give positive criticism to improve style and content but how can telling someone their work is 'trite and facile' without further explanation be justified?

Isn't stating that repeating the same style 'over and over' shows a 'lack of imagination' just a put-down of the writer rather than a comment on their writing? Did the comment about the clique have to be made? How was this helpful? Again, you make a personal criticism and not a comment on the writing. Do you feel you have a remit to insult the writers as well as their work?

I'm not sure what you're driving at in your middle paragraph. If I understand you correctly you're arguing that the number of entries a person has written has no bearing on their status as a Researcher I agree with that. While I'm delighted that milestones like 100 entries are recognised, it would not, for example, give someone the right to lay down the law about what is or isn't EG material. Entry into the EG is criterion based and no researcher has the right to add to those criteria. I don't believe DD or Master B have shown any inclination to impose their standards, preferences, likes or dislikes on others whereas it appears to me that you have done exactly that.

It appears to me that you're saying to DD and Master B - and perhaps to others (I haven't checked (yet)) - that their work must be original, factual and pass *your* anti-dreck test. Their work must be original, factual *and* qualify for the 'Felonious Monk Quality Mark' for being stimulating and interesting.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm in favour of 'dreck' or poor-quality writing or that I want to encourage boring articles. It doesn't mean that I'm anti-dna or that I'm wearing jackboots either - and I've been accused of both in the past. My position is very clear - I'll support, encourage, advise, teach, praise and do whatever else it takes to help my fellow researchers to match the criteria for EG entry but I won't make up criteria of my own. I believe in quality but I'm not going to force other people to adopt my standards.

I'm a lecturer and a teacher too though fortunately I'm not thwarted. I too like the challenge of explaining difficult concepts and I have my own ideas of what is worth knowing. All of this informs my *own* writing. But I'm not going to foist it on others.

I wouldn't presume to tell you how to get satisfaction from writing a song deconstruction. I'd enjoy it though. Bringing together separate facts often presents new opportunities for cultural comparisons and the synthesis of ideas. I'd relish the random nature of the input into my thought processes. I'd have a grand time.

When I write I like to have an audience in mind but how do you define an h2g2 audience? For my hology I write for high school kids doing a science project. That seems to work. For Langton's Ant I had in mind people in my peer group - people who are 'computationally' inclined.

What might an audience get out of a song deconstruction? All I can tell you is that I am part of the audience for Master B's work and I enjoyed the slightly out-of-date cultural references, the rhymes were interesting. I was intrigued by the thought processes that linked one name with another and wondered why so many of the tv people named had ended up in radio.

I hope the seam is not mined-out. I'd argue that it's not for either of us to decide.

To summarise then. I'm keen on the idea that the EG is criterion-based and I think the criteria are fine as they are and don't need ad hoc additions relating to quality.

Look: I have set out my stall comprehensively and I am really getting quite bored with this argument. I am *not* trying to impose my views on the Guide. If people want to go on writing this kind of stuff, Scouts go on recommending it and it keeps on ending up on the Front Page then so be it. I am simply warning that the Guide will suffer as a result and it will cater to an increasingly diminishing audience. I will leave, and others will not bother reading it let alone writing for it.

As for 'put-downs' of the writer, if they wish to become indissolubly associated with a certain style of writing, and through association, my perfectly *valid* criticism of the crank-the-handle approach therefore becomes an implicit criticism of *them* that that's *their* problem, not mine. They have a simple choice: they can go writing these or decide not to. It depends what they value more: a Gold Badge or having people enjoy their writing.

If you cast your mind back a few posts, the reason I re-entered this fray was because of the comment that 'these entries make better reading than most'. I could not let a sweeping (and rather self-satisfied) generalisation like that pass without being challenged. They don't, and this is a quote from someone I know: 'It's quite clearly bollocks. They make better reading than some of the crap in the EG but 99% of edited entries are better than analytical entries like this'.

Now, I really think I have made my point loud and clear. Several times over, in fact, and if you don't agree with it, then fine. If your views happen to be the prevailing views in this community, then perhaps it's time *I* left and found something rather more promising.

Oh, and while I'm at it, if I *am* to be criticised for trying to impose my standards on this community, I'd quite happy to know it it was because I'd set my standards too *high*.

If the only entries we were getting through were all lyric-related ones, we'd probably ask people to think of new ways of approaching the material, as FM has suggested.

As it is, I'm not sure we have that much to worry about just yet, so long as the lyrics being analysed are of general interest.

I think it's worth questioning if we're getting too much of one type or style of entry so that we can keep the Front Page entries fresh and varied enough for those many h2g2 addicts who never go deeper into the site than the Front Page entries. I'm only sorry that with the election and launch of the mobile site we've not been able to dip into this sooner and perhaps avoid things getting heated. But I'm also glad that people care enough to get heated.

We're going to accept this entry. We like both the song and the subject. But we'd also like to ask if there are any willing volunteers to collaborate on some of the topics that have been suggested in <./>ChallengeH2G2</.> - specifically an entry on The Who, which we'd love someone to write for us, cos we think they're great (and because we're old crusties at heart).

Any takers?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Hooray - well done!

Jules